The Instigator
stevoaaa
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

A child"s purity should not be protected from the harsh realities of the world.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 790 times Debate No: 55100
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

stevoaaa

Con

This is a debate that has to do with the catcher and the rye. I think that parents that baby their kids. Their kids end up being socially awkward and not knowing how to function properly in a normal society.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Pro

I accept this debate and will be arguing in favor of the following resolution:

"A child"s purity should not be protected from the harsh realities of the world."

Unfortunately, it appears as though my opponent, who has registered himself as Con, either has opted to present us some semblance of cognitive dissonance in a maneuver to keep us on our toes, or has mistakenly chosen the side he in fact disagrees with.

Because he has listed himself as "Con," he needs to argue against this resolution. That is, he needs to argue that a child's purity should be protected from the harsh realities of the world.

However, his opening argument -- in fact, his only argument -- does not accomplish that. In fact, he argues for my side: he claims that parents who "baby their kids" cause their children to grow up socially awkward, without the capacity to properly function in society.

Effectively, he is conceding the debate before it has even begun by admitting that parents should not shield their children from the harsh realities of the world.

However, I will offer further arguments on this, which obviously, given the fact that this is a one-round debate, Con will not be able to refute. Because he has not offered a single argument in favor of his side, I only need a single contention in order to win this debate.

Contention 1:
Note that this resolution says "child." A parent can only protect his or her child from the harsh realities of the world -- or, I should say, "attempt" to protect his or her child. Not only is it quite probably that the parent cannot physically shield the child from every conceivable harsh reality by virtue of the fact that the child will likely experience these harsh realities anyway, whether they be in school, at a sporting event, in the local neighborhood, etc.; but, also, parents cannot possibly protect their children from these realities when they are no longer children. This doesn't necessarily address teenagers, whom some may consider children, but more so adults. After the children grow up, they're going to have to face these harsh realities at some point. You cannot possibly shield them from these realities.

So, not only is attempting to protect children from harsh realities merely prolonging the inevitable, but it exacerbates the problem when they eventually grow up and have to face these realities because, if we accept that they have never had to experience them, they won't know how to react.


Let's take the harsh reality of rejection, for instance. A parent wanted to prevent her child from feeling rejected, so she disallowed him from participating on his school's sporting team.

Then, the child turns 18 and applies to college. He has never been rejected before, let's say, but receives several rejection letters in the those infamous small envelopes (we've all been there).

Essentially, the parent, while undoubtedly well-intended, presented to her child a fantasy: a fantasy of a world where rejection doesn't exist. Surely it does. But, now that her child is 18, it's virtually impossible for her to protect him any longer, so rejection will simply be more painful than it otherwise would be because he now needs to learn how to cope.


Conclusion:
Con has in fact argued in favor of my side of this resolution and presented no arguments for his own.

Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Charliemouse 3 years ago
Charliemouse
I think that the "harsh reality" could easily be changed by a couple of innocent, na"ve generations because if all people were like children, then people would be good and the world would be a better place, would it not? the harsh reality should not be opened to kids because we are the crappers who made it this way. why infect the young ones with our sad lives? it would be better to build their future on lies in the hope that they fake it till they make it.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
stevoaaaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: >_<
Vote Placed by Cutiepuffle 3 years ago
Cutiepuffle
stevoaaaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't argue.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 3 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
stevoaaaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued the wrong side
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
stevoaaaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con could not possibly have won. Presented no arguments
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
stevoaaaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments made by con. Con should make multi round debates in the future and actually present arguments. On another note. I wish pro would stop accepting debates like this.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
stevoaaaJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Accidental concession...